Karnataka High Court · 2011
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. We therefore, see no grounds to interfere with the order 4 passed by the learned Single Judge. It is for the Controlling Authority to consider the matter in accordance with law as was directed by the learned Single Judge.
Judgment
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO W.A. No.17394/2011 (L-PF) BETWEEN : 1 2 AND : 1 THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER 9TH FLOOR MAYUR BHAVAN, CONNAUGHT CIRCLE, NEW DELHI THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER 13, RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD, BANGALORE 560 025. ...APPELLANTS ( By Sri. HARIKRISHNA S HOLLA, ADV.) M/S MYSORE MINERALS LTD (GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING) NO. 39, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2 THE BRANCH MANAGER INDIAN BANK, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS ( By SRI. K R ANAND, ADV. FOR R-1, SRI. A. KESHAVA BHAT, ADV. FOR R-2) 2 This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside the order dated 21st September 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.29193/2011. This Writ Appeal coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, V. SURI APPA RAO. J., delivered the following : JUDGMENT The appellants filed this appeal challenging the correctness of the order dated 21st September 2011 in W.P. No. 29193/2011, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and directed the Controlling Authority to consider the matter in accordance with law by keeping in mind the law declared by Madras High Court.
The brief facts leading to this appeal are as under : The appellants have filed the writ petition to quash the order dated 24th December 2010 at Annexure 'D' passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal. The 1st respondent – Mysore Minerals Limited deposited the provident fund dues of its employees. For the delay in depositing the funds, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner initiated proceedings and levied damages of 3 Rs.77,76,717/- as per Annexure 'A'. The 1st respondent aggrieved by the order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner filed an Appeal in ATA No.177(6)/2005 before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority partly allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Controlling Authority to assess the liability at the rate of 22% anually inclusive of interest.
Admittedly, the controversy between the parties is with regard to the delay in depositing the contribution of provident fund dues. The 1st respondent placed materials before the Appellate Authority stating that there is continuous loss suffered by the Company, which is a State Government Undertaking. The Appellate Authority having passed the impugned order, remanding the matter with some direction it is for the Controlling Authority to consider the matter basing on the financial position of the respondent and keeping in mind the law declared by the Madras High Court relied upon by the respondent – Company. Considering the above aspects, the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants.
We therefore, see no grounds to interfere with the order 4 passed by the learned Single Judge. It is for the Controlling Authority to consider the matter in accordance with law as was directed by the learned Single Judge.
The appeal is therefore dismissed for lack of merits. Sd/- JUDGE. Sd/- JUDGE. Rbv
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.